Martin v. Aramark Services, Inc.

Decision Date25 May 2004
Docket NumberNo. 99878,99878
Citation92 P.3d 96,2004 OK 38
PartiesCAROLINE MARTIN, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. ARAMARK SERVICES, INC., Defendant/Appellee.
CourtOklahoma Supreme Court

John Mac Hayes, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for plaintiff/appellant, Caroline Martin.

Kevin R. Donelson, Fellers, Snider, Blankenship, Bailey & Tippens, P.C., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for defendant/appellee, Aramark Services, Inc.

BOUDREAU, J.

¶1 Appellant, Caroline Martin (Martin), appeals the district court's order granting Aramark Services, Inc.'s (Aramark) motion for summary judgment which the Court of Civil Appeals, Division I, affirmed. We reverse the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Aramark.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Martin filed suit against Aramark for injuries sustained as a result of falling in a tunnel hallway which leads from Saint Anthony Hospital, where she worked, to the employee parking garage. At the time of Martin's fall, an Aramark employee was working in the tunnel stripping and waxing the floor. Martin claimed that she fell because of Aramark's failure to adequately warn her of the dangerous condition existing on the tunnel floor.

¶3 Aramark filed a motion for summary judgment maintaining it took reasonable care in warning invitees, including Martin, of the potentially dangerous condition on the floor. The trial court granted Aramark's motion. Martin appealed and the Court of Civil Appeals, Division I, affirmed the summary judgment finding Aramark satisfied its duty to warn Martin of a potentially dangerous condition on the floor. We previously granted certiorari.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶4 Whether summary judgment was properly entered is a question of law which we review de novo. Manley v. Brown, 1999 OK 79, ¶ 22, 989 P.2d 448, 455

. In a de novo review, we have plenary, independent and non-deferential authority to determine whether the trial court erred in its application of the law and whether there is any genuine issue of material fact. Kluver v. Weatherford Hosp. Auth., 1993 OK 85, ¶ 14, 859 P.2d 1081, 1084. Like the trial court, we examine the pleadings and summary judgment evidentiary materials submitted by the parties to determine if there is a genuine issue of material fact. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, ¶ 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. We view the facts and all reasonable inferences arising therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id.

III. ANALYSIS

¶5 It is undisputed that Martin was an invitee.1 Aramark, as invitor, had the duty to exercise reasonable care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn Martin of conditions which were in the nature of hidden dangers, traps, snares or pitfalls. Rogers v. Hennessee, 1979 OK 138, 602 P.2d 1033, 1034. However, Aramark had no duty to protect against or warn Martin of dangers which were open and obvious, and which she could have discovered in the exercise of ordinary care. See McKinney v. Harrington, 1993 OK 88, ¶9, 855 P.2d 602, 604

.

¶6 The summary judgment record establishes that on the night Martin slipped and fell an Aramark employee was stripping and applying wax to one side of the tunnel floor which connected the hospital and employee parking garage. Since wax on a floor may not be readily observable, the condition presented by the floor was in the nature of a hidden danger and not one that was open and obvious. As a result, Aramark had a duty to warn Martin of the potentially dangerous condition. In that connection, it is undisputed that Aramark placed two parallel paths of rubber strips, leaving floor space between, on the side of the hallway which remained open for public passage. As a warning to the public of the slippery condition on the floor on the side closed for public passage, Aramark placed five yellow "wet floor" signs down the middle of the hallway to separate the side of the tunnel hallway open for public passage from the side that was closed. Although disputed by Martin, the employee stated in his deposition that he also closed the door leading to the side of the hallway that was closed for public passage. It is undisputed that immediately prior to Martin's fall, the employee was standing with a mop and yellow bucket on a rubber strip on the side of the hallway open to public passage.

¶7 In her response to Aramark's motion for summary judgment, Martin claimed that under the circumstances Aramark failed to adequately warn her of the dangerous condition posed by the tunnel floors. An invitor must give a warning that is adequate to enable an invitee to avoid harm. See Hull v. Oklahoma City Baseball Co., 1945 OK 194, 163 P.2d 982, 984. Furthermore, if an invitor, after giving a warning, realizes or should realize that the warning is not adequate to protect the invitee from harm or that the invitee has not received or understood the warning, the invitor must provide a more adequate warning or desist in doing the act. See Restatement 2nd, Torts, §§ 341A, 344. The adequacy of a warning is normally a question of fact to be determined by the circumstances of each case.

¶8 In support of her response, Martin presented excerpts from her deposition in which she testified that she entered the tunnel hallway on the side open for public passage walking on one path of the rubber strips that had been placed on the floor. As she entered, she observed an Aramark employee standing on one of the rubber strips holding a mop. Because the employee was obstructing her passage, Martin stepped off the rubber strip onto the floor between the strips and immediately fell.2 The employee Martin observed was later identified as Josh Bates. Bates was in training for the company's environmental services department and, on the day of Martin's fall, was being trained in floor care.

¶9 In addition to her deposition testimony, Martin attached video taped photographs taken from a security camera moments before her fall. One of the photographs shows Bates standing on a rubber strip with a mop. In the photograph, Bates appears to be cleaning the floor between the two parallel paths of rubber strips. She also attached excerpts from Bates' deposition in which he testified that three different people fell in the tunnel hallway that evening all within a thirty to forty minute time frame.

¶10 Viewing the facts and all reasonable inferences arising therefrom in a light most...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Payne v. Kerns
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • May 12, 2020
    ...for one by jury, but rather to afford a method of summarily terminating a case when only questions of law remain. Martin v. Aramark Services, Inc. , 2004 OK 38, ¶12, 92 P.3d 96. When uncontroverted proof lends support to conflicting inferences, the choice to be made between the opposite alt......
  • Lee v. Bueno
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • September 20, 2016
    ...v. Keel , 2015 OK 35, ¶ 12, 357 P.3d 470 ; Sheffer v. Carolina Forge Co., L.L.C. , 2013 OK 48, ¶ 10, 306 P.3d 544 ; Martin v. Aramark Servs., Inc. , 2004 OK 38, ¶ 4, 92 P.3d 96. ¶ 7 In considering the constitutionality of a statute, courts are guided by well-established principles and a hea......
  • Cossey v. Cherokee Nation Enterprises, LLC
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • January 20, 2009
    ...and to warn Cossey of conditions which were in the nature of hidden dangers, traps, snares or pitfalls. See Martin v. Aramark Services, Inc., 2004 OK 38, 92 P.3d 96. However, the Tribe's obligation to compensate Cossey for his injuries, upon proper has not been in dispute by these parties.2......
  • Wood v. Mercedes-Benz of Okla. City
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • July 16, 2014
    ...condition and to warn [an invitee] of conditions which [are] in the nature of hidden dangers, traps, snares or pitfalls.” Martin v. Aramark Services, Inc., 2004 OK 38, ¶ 5, 92 P.3d 96, 97.¶ 6 Our opinions have generally eliminated a landowner's duty to protect a third-party for “dangers so ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT